UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

YITZCHOK SHTEIERMAN,

Plaintiff,

No. 24-CV-3978 (KMK) v.

ORDER HILLEL FISHER, and ISRAEL MEIR FARKASH,

Defendants.

KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge: On October 29, 2024, the Court vacated the entry of default, (Dkt. No. 36), and ordered Defendants Hillel Fisher and Israel Meir Farkash to provide their current home and business addresses within 10 days. (See Order (Dkt. No. 46) at 3.) On October 31, 2024, Fisher filed a motion letter to transfer venue. (Dkt. No. 47.) On November 11, 2024, the Court ordered that each Defendant file a letter by November 20, 2024, listing their addresses to facilitate service. (See Order (Dkt. No. 49).) On November 18, 2024, Farkash filed a letter motion to reconsider the Court’s October 29 and November 11 Orders. (Dkt. No. 50.) Owing to the solicitude generally shown pro se parties, the Court will construe Fisher and Farkash’s letter motions as providing their addresses in compliance with its Orders. Accordingly, Plaintiff is instructed to properly serve Defendants by no later than December 30, 2024. Once served, Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint within 21 days of the date of service, as per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(1). In the event that Plaintiff fails to properly serve Defendants by the above deadline, the Court will take up Defendants’ motions and may dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (permitting dismissal of an action for failure to prosecute); Murphy v. L.A. Spaulding et al., No. 20-CV-9013,

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022) (dismissing case brought by pro se plaintiff for failure to prosecute); Armstrong v. Guccione,

, 103 n.1 (2d Cir. 2006) (noting that “a federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to prosecute” (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co.,

(1962)). SO ORDERED. Dated: November 22, 2024 iy. Afi White Plains, New York ENNETH KARAS United States District Judge